Acta Armamentarii ›› 2024, Vol. 45 ›› Issue (4): 1196-1207.doi: 10.12382/bgxb.2022.1037
Previous Articles Next Articles
YAN Zechen1, YUE Songlin1,*(), QIU Yanyu1, WANG Jianping2, ZHAO Yuetang1, SHI Jie3, LI Xu1
Received:
2022-11-08
Online:
2024-04-30
Contact:
YUE Songlin
CLC Number:
YAN Zechen, YUE Songlin, QIU Yanyu, WANG Jianping, ZHAO Yuetang, SHI Jie, LI Xu. Improvement on the Calculation Method for Reflected Pressure of Shock Wave in Underwater Explosion[J]. Acta Armamentarii, 2024, 45(4): 1196-1207.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
T/℃ | ρ0/(g·cm-2) | c0/(km·s-1) |
---|---|---|
5 | 1.0000 | 1.426 |
10 | 0.9997 | 1.448 |
20 | 0.9980 | 1.483 |
40 | 0.9920 | 1.528 |
60 | 0.9830 | 1.549 |
80 | 0.9720 | 1.553 |
90 | 0.9650 | 1.549 |
Table 1 Temperature, speed of sound, and density of water at atmospheric pressure[17]
T/℃ | ρ0/(g·cm-2) | c0/(km·s-1) |
---|---|---|
5 | 1.0000 | 1.426 |
10 | 0.9997 | 1.448 |
20 | 0.9980 | 1.483 |
40 | 0.9920 | 1.528 |
60 | 0.9830 | 1.549 |
80 | 0.9720 | 1.553 |
90 | 0.9650 | 1.549 |
序号 | p/GPa | 计算结果 | 拟合结果 | 误差/% |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 0.05 | 6.82 | 6.76 | -0.88 |
2 | 0.10 | 6.67 | 6.66 | -0.15 |
3 | 0.20 | 6.41 | 6.46 | 0.78 |
4 | 0.50 | 5.90 | 5.97 | 1.19 |
5 | 1.00 | 5.41 | 5.40 | -0.18 |
6 | 2.00 | 4.87 | 4.79 | -1.64 |
7 | 5.00 | 4.17 | 4.18 | 0.24 |
8 | 10.00 | 3.66 | 3.73 | 1.91 |
9 | 15.00 | 3.37 | 3.39 | 0.59 |
10 | 20.00 | 3.16 | 3.14 | -0.63 |
11 | 25.00 | 2.99 | 2.95 | -1.34 |
12 | 30.00 | 2.84 | 2.80 | -1.41 |
13 | 35.00 | 2.71 | 2.69 | -0.74 |
14 | 40.00 | 2.60 | 2.61 | 0.38 |
15 | 45.00 | 2.49 | 2.54 | 2.01 |
Table 2 Comparison of calculated results and fitting results of state parameter k
序号 | p/GPa | 计算结果 | 拟合结果 | 误差/% |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 0.05 | 6.82 | 6.76 | -0.88 |
2 | 0.10 | 6.67 | 6.66 | -0.15 |
3 | 0.20 | 6.41 | 6.46 | 0.78 |
4 | 0.50 | 5.90 | 5.97 | 1.19 |
5 | 1.00 | 5.41 | 5.40 | -0.18 |
6 | 2.00 | 4.87 | 4.79 | -1.64 |
7 | 5.00 | 4.17 | 4.18 | 0.24 |
8 | 10.00 | 3.66 | 3.73 | 1.91 |
9 | 15.00 | 3.37 | 3.39 | 0.59 |
10 | 20.00 | 3.16 | 3.14 | -0.63 |
11 | 25.00 | 2.99 | 2.95 | -1.34 |
12 | 30.00 | 2.84 | 2.80 | -1.41 |
13 | 35.00 | 2.71 | 2.69 | -0.74 |
14 | 40.00 | 2.60 | 2.61 | 0.38 |
15 | 45.00 | 2.49 | 2.54 | 2.01 |
序号 | pi/ MPa | 本文方法pr/ MPa | Cole[ | 罗兴柏等[ | Henrych[ | 罗泽立等[ | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
pr/MPa | 偏差/% | pr/MPa | 偏差/% | pr/MPa | 偏差/% | pr/MPa | 偏差/% | |||
1 | 50 | 104.15 | 104.28 | -0.13 | 104.14 | 0.01 | 102.98 | 1.13 | 102.88 | 1.23 |
2 | 100 | 215.45 | 216.71 | -0.58 | 216.23 | -0.36 | 212.25 | 1.51 | 211.14 | 2.04 |
3 | 200 | 454.43 | 460.74 | -1.37 | 459.17 | -1.03 | 447.33 | 1.59 | 441.67 | 2.89 |
4 | 500 | 1253.48 | 1300.20 | -3.59 | 1293.94 | -3.13 | 1260.03 | -0.52 | 1218.21 | 2.89 |
5 | 1000 | 2728.15 | 2921.05 | -6.60 | 2905.65 | -6.11 | 2861.58 | -4.66 | 2687.19 | 1.52 |
6 | 2500 | 7613.65 | 8642.45 | -11.90 | 8206.75 | -7.23 | 8550.53 | -10.96 | 7621.90 | -0.11 |
7 | 5000 | 16381.42 | 19648.15 | -16.63 | 18776.65 | -12.76 | 19057.31 | -14.04 | 16359.08 | 0.14 |
8 | 7500 | 25514.07 | 31709.14 | -19.54 | 30451.77 | -16.21 | 29959.43 | -14.84 | 25266.46 | 0.98 |
9 | 10000 | 34927.55 | 44482.23 | -21.48 | 42880.84 | -18.55 | 41007.72 | -14.83 | 34231.58 | 2.03 |
10 | 25000 | 96476.96 | 129874.11 | -25.72 | 126832.20 | -23.93 | 108084.80 | -10.74 | 88314.55 | 9.24 |
11 | 35000 | 141132.22 | 192007.84 | -26.50 | 188432.98 | -25.10 | 152993.88 | -7.75 | 124437.63 | 13.42 |
12 | 45000 | 187223.67 | 256913.84 | -27.13 | 253060.19 | -26.02 | 197941.73 | -5.41 | 160573.99 | 16.60 |
Table 3 Comparison of reflected pressuresof underwater explosion shock wave calculated by different methods
序号 | pi/ MPa | 本文方法pr/ MPa | Cole[ | 罗兴柏等[ | Henrych[ | 罗泽立等[ | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
pr/MPa | 偏差/% | pr/MPa | 偏差/% | pr/MPa | 偏差/% | pr/MPa | 偏差/% | |||
1 | 50 | 104.15 | 104.28 | -0.13 | 104.14 | 0.01 | 102.98 | 1.13 | 102.88 | 1.23 |
2 | 100 | 215.45 | 216.71 | -0.58 | 216.23 | -0.36 | 212.25 | 1.51 | 211.14 | 2.04 |
3 | 200 | 454.43 | 460.74 | -1.37 | 459.17 | -1.03 | 447.33 | 1.59 | 441.67 | 2.89 |
4 | 500 | 1253.48 | 1300.20 | -3.59 | 1293.94 | -3.13 | 1260.03 | -0.52 | 1218.21 | 2.89 |
5 | 1000 | 2728.15 | 2921.05 | -6.60 | 2905.65 | -6.11 | 2861.58 | -4.66 | 2687.19 | 1.52 |
6 | 2500 | 7613.65 | 8642.45 | -11.90 | 8206.75 | -7.23 | 8550.53 | -10.96 | 7621.90 | -0.11 |
7 | 5000 | 16381.42 | 19648.15 | -16.63 | 18776.65 | -12.76 | 19057.31 | -14.04 | 16359.08 | 0.14 |
8 | 7500 | 25514.07 | 31709.14 | -19.54 | 30451.77 | -16.21 | 29959.43 | -14.84 | 25266.46 | 0.98 |
9 | 10000 | 34927.55 | 44482.23 | -21.48 | 42880.84 | -18.55 | 41007.72 | -14.83 | 34231.58 | 2.03 |
10 | 25000 | 96476.96 | 129874.11 | -25.72 | 126832.20 | -23.93 | 108084.80 | -10.74 | 88314.55 | 9.24 |
11 | 35000 | 141132.22 | 192007.84 | -26.50 | 188432.98 | -25.10 | 152993.88 | -7.75 | 124437.63 | 13.42 |
12 | 45000 | 187223.67 | 256913.84 | -27.13 | 253060.19 | -26.02 | 197941.73 | -5.41 | 160573.99 | 16.60 |
ρ0/ (kg·m-3) | A/Pa | B/Pa | ω | R1 | R2 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1630 | 3.738×1011 | 3.747×109 | 0.3 | 4.15 | 0.9 |
Table 4 Material parameters of TNT
ρ0/ (kg·m-3) | A/Pa | B/Pa | ω | R1 | R2 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1630 | 3.738×1011 | 3.747×109 | 0.3 | 4.15 | 0.9 |
ρ0/(kg·m-3) | A1/Pa | A2/Pa | A3/Pa |
---|---|---|---|
998 | 2.2×109 | 9.54×109 | 14.57×109 |
B0 | B1 | T1/Pa | T2/Pa |
0.28 | 0.28 | 2.2×109 | 0 |
Table 5 Material parameters of water
ρ0/(kg·m-3) | A1/Pa | A2/Pa | A3/Pa |
---|---|---|---|
998 | 2.2×109 | 9.54×109 | 14.57×109 |
B0 | B1 | T1/Pa | T2/Pa |
0.28 | 0.28 | 2.2×109 | 0 |
测点 | 装药 量/kg | 距离/ r0 | 峰压数值模 拟结果/MPa | 峰压理论计 算结果/MPa | 误差/ % |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 800 | 1.02 | 11034.20 | 11964.40 | -7.77 |
2 | 800 | 1.10 | 8423.37 | 9386.32 | -10.26 |
3 | 800 | 1.20 | 6201.73 | 7243.66 | -14.38 |
4 | 800 | 1.40 | 4077.71 | 4681.03 | -12.89 |
5 | 800 | 1.80 | 2077.86 | 2372.61 | -12.42 |
6 | 800 | 2.50 | 1027.78 | 1191.83 | -13.76 |
7 | 800 | 3.00 | 725.38 | 830.26 | -12.63 |
8 | 800 | 4.00 | 445.48 | 488.01 | -8.72 |
9 | 800 | 5.50 | 275.55 | 282.68 | -2.52 |
10 | 800 | 8.00 | 157.28 | 159.73 | -1.53 |
11 | 800 | 14.00 | 72.92 | 73.41 | -0.67 |
Table 6 Comparison between numerically simulated result and calculated result
测点 | 装药 量/kg | 距离/ r0 | 峰压数值模 拟结果/MPa | 峰压理论计 算结果/MPa | 误差/ % |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 800 | 1.02 | 11034.20 | 11964.40 | -7.77 |
2 | 800 | 1.10 | 8423.37 | 9386.32 | -10.26 |
3 | 800 | 1.20 | 6201.73 | 7243.66 | -14.38 |
4 | 800 | 1.40 | 4077.71 | 4681.03 | -12.89 |
5 | 800 | 1.80 | 2077.86 | 2372.61 | -12.42 |
6 | 800 | 2.50 | 1027.78 | 1191.83 | -13.76 |
7 | 800 | 3.00 | 725.38 | 830.26 | -12.63 |
8 | 800 | 4.00 | 445.48 | 488.01 | -8.72 |
9 | 800 | 5.50 | 275.55 | 282.68 | -2.52 |
10 | 800 | 8.00 | 157.28 | 159.73 | -1.53 |
11 | 800 | 14.00 | 72.92 | 73.41 | -0.67 |
装药 当量/g | 峰压数值模拟 结果/MPa | 峰压试验 结果/MPa | 误差/ % |
---|---|---|---|
25 | 20.26 | 21.21 | -4.48 |
50 | 27.73 | 30.14 | -8.00 |
100 | 36.38 | 35.57 | 2.28 |
200 | 48.45 | 51.96 | -6.76 |
Table 7 Comparison between numerically simulated result and experimental result
装药 当量/g | 峰压数值模拟 结果/MPa | 峰压试验 结果/MPa | 误差/ % |
---|---|---|---|
25 | 20.26 | 21.21 | -4.48 |
50 | 27.73 | 30.14 | -8.00 |
100 | 36.38 | 35.57 | 2.28 |
200 | 48.45 | 51.96 | -6.76 |
序号 | 入射压力 pi/MPa | 数值模拟 pr/MPa | 本文方法 | Henrych[ | Cole[ | 罗泽立等[ | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
pr/MPa | 误差/% | pr/MPa | 误差/% | pr/MPa | 误差/% | pr/MPa | 误差/% | |||
1 | 72.92 | 149.21 | 154.37 | 3.46 | 152.58 | 2.26 | 155.04 | 3.91 | 151.87 | 1.79 |
2 | 157.28 | 346.98 | 350.02 | 0.87 | 344.62 | -0.68 | 353.84 | 1.98 | 341.06 | -1.71 |
3 | 275.55 | 621.86 | 646.04 | 3.89 | 638.09 | 2.61 | 658.88 | 5.95 | 626.52 | 0.75 |
4 | 445.48 | 1054.17 | 1101.68 | 4.51 | 1102.49 | 4.58 | 1138.44 | 7.99 | 1069.44 | 1.45 |
5 | 725.38 | 1838.57 | 1902.34 | 3.47 | 1951.81 | 6.16 | 2004.21 | 9.01 | 1860.17 | 1.18 |
6 | 1027.78 | 2704.90 | 2813.40 | 4.01 | 2957.55 | 9.34 | 3017.32 | 11.55 | 2772.98 | 2.52 |
7 | 2077.86 | 6328.29 | 6193.69 | -2.13 | 6869.18 | 8.55 | 6940.50 | 9.67 | 6189.93 | -2.19 |
8 | 4077.71 | 13089.95 | 13093.50 | 0.03 | 15109.47 | 15.43 | 15437.25 | 17.93 | 13103.49 | 0.10 |
9 | 6201.73 | 21129.96 | 20734.25 | -1.87 | 24271.74 | 14.87 | 25343.58 | 19.94 | 20629.96 | -2.37 |
10 | 8423.37 | 29296.86 | 28959.54 | -1.15 | 34029.40 | 16.15 | 36357.60 | 24.10 | 28573.34 | -2.47 |
11 | 11034.20 | 39023.58 | 38899.08 | -0.32 | 45601.22 | 16.86 | 49931.83 | 27.95 | 37948.93 | -2.75 |
Table 8 Comparison of simulated reflected peak pressures with the calculated results of different methods
序号 | 入射压力 pi/MPa | 数值模拟 pr/MPa | 本文方法 | Henrych[ | Cole[ | 罗泽立等[ | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
pr/MPa | 误差/% | pr/MPa | 误差/% | pr/MPa | 误差/% | pr/MPa | 误差/% | |||
1 | 72.92 | 149.21 | 154.37 | 3.46 | 152.58 | 2.26 | 155.04 | 3.91 | 151.87 | 1.79 |
2 | 157.28 | 346.98 | 350.02 | 0.87 | 344.62 | -0.68 | 353.84 | 1.98 | 341.06 | -1.71 |
3 | 275.55 | 621.86 | 646.04 | 3.89 | 638.09 | 2.61 | 658.88 | 5.95 | 626.52 | 0.75 |
4 | 445.48 | 1054.17 | 1101.68 | 4.51 | 1102.49 | 4.58 | 1138.44 | 7.99 | 1069.44 | 1.45 |
5 | 725.38 | 1838.57 | 1902.34 | 3.47 | 1951.81 | 6.16 | 2004.21 | 9.01 | 1860.17 | 1.18 |
6 | 1027.78 | 2704.90 | 2813.40 | 4.01 | 2957.55 | 9.34 | 3017.32 | 11.55 | 2772.98 | 2.52 |
7 | 2077.86 | 6328.29 | 6193.69 | -2.13 | 6869.18 | 8.55 | 6940.50 | 9.67 | 6189.93 | -2.19 |
8 | 4077.71 | 13089.95 | 13093.50 | 0.03 | 15109.47 | 15.43 | 15437.25 | 17.93 | 13103.49 | 0.10 |
9 | 6201.73 | 21129.96 | 20734.25 | -1.87 | 24271.74 | 14.87 | 25343.58 | 19.94 | 20629.96 | -2.37 |
10 | 8423.37 | 29296.86 | 28959.54 | -1.15 | 34029.40 | 16.15 | 36357.60 | 24.10 | 28573.34 | -2.47 |
11 | 11034.20 | 39023.58 | 38899.08 | -0.32 | 45601.22 | 16.86 | 49931.83 | 27.95 | 37948.93 | -2.75 |
[1] |
黄谢平, 孔祥振, 陈祖煜, 等. 近水面、库中、水下爆炸荷载作用下混凝土重力坝的破坏模式对比[J]. 土木工程学报, 2023, 56(3):116-128.
|
|
|
[2] |
|
[3] |
韦灼彬, 唐廷, 王立军. 港口水下爆炸荷载冲击特性研究[J]. 振动与冲击, 2014, 33(6): 18-22, 34.
|
|
|
[4] |
|
[5] |
梁浩哲, 张庆明, 杨莉. 刚性壁面附近深水爆炸气泡射流特性数值模拟[J]. 兵工学报, 2017, 38(增刊1): 130-135.
|
|
|
[6] |
刘靖晗, 唐廷, 韦灼彬, 等. 刚性柱附近浅水爆炸荷载特性研究[J]. 高压物理学报, 2019, 33(5): 166-173.
|
|
|
[16] |
|
[17] |
|
[18] |
汤文辉, 张若棋. 物态方程理论及计算概论[M]. 第2版. 北京: 高等教育出版社, 2008.
|
|
|
[19] |
宁建国, 王成, 马天宝. 爆炸与冲击动力学[M]. 北京: 国防工业出版社, 2010.
|
|
|
[20] |
|
[21] |
李维新. 凝聚介质的简化状态方程[J]. 爆炸与冲击, 1983, 3(2): 30-38.
|
|
|
[22] |
|
[23] |
|
[24] |
邱清水, 陈莹玉, 古滨, 等. 水下近场爆炸载荷数值预报研究[J]. 四川轻化工大学学报(自然科学版), 2020, 33(5): 44-50.
|
[7] |
刘靖晗, 韦灼彬, 唐廷, 等. 刚性壁或刚性单柱附近水下爆炸气泡脉动的数值研究[J]. 海军工程大学学报, 2020, 32(4): 106-112.
|
|
|
[8] |
李海涛, 朱石坚, 陈志坚, 等. 全入射角度下平板冲击波的壁压载荷及局部空化特性[J]. 爆炸与冲击, 2014, 34(3): 354-360.
|
|
|
[9] |
刘晓波, 李帅, 张阿漫. 水下爆炸冲击波壁压理论及数值计算方法改进研究[J]. 爆炸与冲击, 2022, 42(1): 123-135.
|
|
|
[10] |
闫秋实, 张志杰, 王丕光, 等. 水下爆炸荷载作用下圆柱结构反射压力解析计算方法研究[J]. 工程力学, 2022, 39(7): 247-256.
|
|
|
[11] |
毛致远, 段超伟, 宋浦, 等. 基于有效冲量的水下爆炸冲击波对平板结构的毁伤准则[J]. 高压物理学报, 2023, 37(2): 025103.
|
|
|
[12] |
|
[13] |
罗兴柏, 张玉令, 丁玉奎. 爆炸力学理论教程[M]. 北京: 国防工业出版社, 2016.
|
|
|
[14] |
|
[15] |
罗泽立, 周章涛, 毛海斌, 等. 水下爆炸强冲击波与平板结构相互作用的理论分析方法[J]. 高压物理学报, 2017, 31(4): 443-452.
|
|
|
[16] |
李维新. 一维不定常流与冲击波[M]. 北京: 国防工业出版社, 2003.
|
[24] |
|
[25] |
|
[26] |
李晓杰, 张程娇, 王小红, 等. 水的状态方程对水下爆炸影响的研究[J]. 工程力学, 2014, 31(8): 46-52.
|
|
|
[27] |
|
[28] |
宫翔飞, 刘文韬, 张树道, 等. 水下爆炸近场峰值压力的数值模拟[J]. 爆炸与冲击, 2019, 39(4): 041409.
|
|
|
[29] |
赵文达, 赵玉红, 闫秋实. 水下爆炸荷载作用下重力式沉箱码头破坏效应研究[C]// 第28届全国结构工程学术会议论文集(第2册). 南昌: 工程力学编辑部, 2019: 496-505.
|
|
[1] | WANG Haiyang, LONG Renrong, ZHANG Qingming, LIU Bowen, LIAO Chen. Deformation Model of Ring-stiffened Conical-cylindrical Shell under Deep-underwater Explosion Based on Plastic String Method [J]. Acta Armamentarii, 2024, 45(3): 705-719. |
[2] | LI Jing, SUN Xiaoxia, MA Xinglong, ZHU Wenxiang. Heat Transfer and Flow Characteristics of Open-cell Metal Foams [J]. Acta Armamentarii, 2024, 45(1): 122-130. |
[3] | LEI Juanmian, GAO Yi, YONG Zheng. Numerical Investigation of the Jet Interference Characteristics of a Lateral-jet-controlled Spinning Missile [J]. Acta Armamentarii, 2024, 45(1): 105-121. |
[4] | WANG Xinyu, JIANG Chunlan, WANG Zaicheng, FANG Yuande. Research on the Pressure Relief Structure of JEO Shaped Charge Warhead during Cook-off [J]. Acta Armamentarii, 2024, 45(1): 1-14. |
[5] | LEI Te, WU Yuwen, XU Gao, QIU Yanming, KANG Chaohui, WENG Chunsheng. Study on Three-dimensional Rotating Detonation Flow Field Structures Based on Large Eddy Simulation [J]. Acta Armamentarii, 2024, 45(1): 85-96. |
[6] | ZHOU Guangpan, WANG Rong, WANG Mingyang, DING Jianguo, ZHANG Guokai. Experiment and Numerical Simulation of Explosion Resistance Performance of Main Girder of Self-anchored Suspension Bridge Coated with Polyurea [J]. Acta Armamentarii, 2023, 44(S1): 9-25. |
[7] | KOU Yongfeng, YANG Kun, ZHANG Bin, XIAO Yiwen, LU Jianying, CHEN Lang. Research on Thermal Safety of Warhead Charge Based on Cook-off Experimental and Numerical Simulation [J]. Acta Armamentarii, 2023, 44(S1): 41-49. |
[8] | LI Xu, YUE Songlin, QIU Yanyu, WANG Mingyang, DENG Shuxin, LIU Niannian. Experimental Study on Interaction between Bubble and Concrete Composite Slab in Near-field Underwater Explosion [J]. Acta Armamentarii, 2023, 44(S1): 79-89. |
[9] | ZHOU Longyun, LI Xiaojun, YAN Qiushi. Analysis on Dynamic Response of Bridge Pier under Near-field Underwater Explosion Loading [J]. Acta Armamentarii, 2023, 44(S1): 90-98. |
[10] | YU Shuangyang, PENG Yong. Numerical Simulation of Temperature Rise of 4340 Steel Projectile Penetrating into 45# Steel Target [J]. Acta Armamentarii, 2023, 44(S1): 144-151. |
[11] | YU Wenjun, CHEN Shengyun, DENG Shuxin, YU Bingbing, JIN Dongyan. Numerical Simulation of the Propagation Law of Explosion Shock Wave in Turning Tunnel [J]. Acta Armamentarii, 2023, 44(S1): 180-188. |
[12] | DU Yonggang, WANG Xuesong, WAN Zhihua. Study of Screw Drive Failure Mechanisms in a Flight Aid Carrier [J]. Acta Armamentarii, 2023, 44(7): 2033-2040. |
[13] | LI Furong, RONG Jili, WANG Xi, CHEN Zichao, WEI Zhenqian, ZHAO Zitong. Research on Impact Resistance and Failure Modes of Pyramid Sandwich Panel Subjected to Underwater Explosion [J]. Acta Armamentarii, 2023, 44(7): 1954-1965. |
[14] | GAO Tiesuo, JIANG Tao, FU Yang’aoxiao, DING Mingsong, LIU Qingzong, DONG Weizhong, XU Yong, LI Peng. Plasma Distribution and Its Effect on Electromagnetic Wave Transmission across Vehicles of Varying Sizes [J]. Acta Armamentarii, 2023, 44(6): 1809-1819. |
[15] | LIU Weizhao, LI Rong, NIU Lanjie, SHI Kunlin. Research Status and Prospect of Hard-Target Penetration Initiation Control Technology [J]. Acta Armamentarii, 2023, 44(6): 1602-1619. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||